Throttle for Single Cylinder IR Manifold

Just curious and theorectically speaking, do you all suppose that a throttle for a single cylinder IR manifold could match the VE of a normal butterfly valve by using an intake valve of the same diameter and lift as the operating cylinder's intake valve, except maybe with a small plenum chamber or funnel entrance to insure that the valve curtain is unmasked like in the combustion chamber?

Just curious and theorectically speaking, do you all suppose that a throttle for a single cylinder IR manifold could match the VE of a normal butterfly valve by using an intake valve of the same diameter and lift as the operating cylinder's intake valve, except maybe with a small plenum chamber or funnel entrance to insure that the valve curtain is unmasked like in the combustion chamber?

I don't know.....don't Amals use a cylinder slide throttle assembly? I am asking about an intake throttle that works exactly like an intake valve in the combustion chamber......assuming that the operating cylinder's intake valve diameter and lift is potentially a choke point in a complete IR induction system.

You can't beat a smooth, unobstructed hole - something like you get with a barrel or slide throttle at WOT.

A second poppet valve in the runner will only create another pressure drop and also act as a barrier to the pressure waves essential to wave tuning.

Ok, good......now using the same double intake valve in series concept, one for the cylinder inlet and one for the throttle, how do you suppose the double intake valve's VE would compare to a butterfly/shaft arrangement under a high pressure turbo supercharged scenario?

BTW, I'm only using a poppet valve for a throttle as an extreme example!

If you got the design just right it would have very little presure drop and perform essentially as well as other types. The design path you are following leads to the "spike" type throttle valve. The spike valve flows almost as well as a barrel at WOT but has a better discharge coefficient (lower pumping losses) at part throttle.

EDIT. The spike throttle sees a closing force that is dependent on manifold vacuum (and boost if blow-thru) so requires special attention to the throttle actuation mechanism.

If you got the design just right it would have very little presure drop and perform essentially as well as other types. The design path you are following leads to the "spike" type throttle valve. The spike valve flows almost as well as a barrel at WOT but has a better discharge coefficient (lower pumping losses) at part throttle.

EDIT. The spike throttle sees a closing force that is dependent on manifold vacuum (and boost if blow-thru) so requires special attention to the throttle actuation mechanism.

I don't know.....don't Amals use a cylinder slide throttle assembly? I am asking about an intake throttle that works exactly like an intake valve in the combustion chamber......assuming that the operating cylinder's intake valve diameter and lift is potentially a choke point in a complete IR induction system.John

John, do you mean something operating like:

Low lift

Medium lift

High lift

The control shaft (blue in the above animations) is directly connected to the gas pedal by the gas cable. The deeper the gas pedal is pressed, the more the control shafts rotate increasing the valve stroke (lift). When the gas pedal is released the normal valve springs restore the control shaft at its "idling" position.

Depending on the control shafts angular position the valve lift profile varies continuously from zero (for valve deactivation if desirable), to tiny (for idling), to mild, to medium, to racing (top curve), all in the same engine, all instantly available:

All these are from a modified four cylinder B16A2 Honda VTEC 1600cc engine:

but from the intake system:

you see that the intake is independent in each cylinder (like having four independent single cylinders, or like using a throttle-less free-flow ITB).

No throttle at all (the throttling is realised exclussively by the intake valves: at real urban driving, for instance, it runs the intake valves below 2.5 mm lift).

Things become easier in case of the single cylinder because at idling:

you have no the problem of the balance among different cylinders as described at:

The breathing efficiency of the engine (as compared to the original) is anquestionably better.

The rev limt is set at 9000 rpm for the sake of the pistons, connecting rods, crankshaft.

The following plot is the result of the dataloging at real conditions (acceleration on a public road) with the Hondata S200 system:

The blue curve is the lambda value times the injection duration value, i.e. it is the quantity, per cycle, of air that is handled by the engine. At a first approach the blue curve gives the form of the torque curve. The red curve is the value of the blue curve times the revs (horizontal axis). Roughly speaking, the red curve gives the form of the power curve.The cyan curve is the MAP sensor. It gives an idea of how much the gas pedal was pressed (i.e. of the valve lift) at the specific revs.

There are a lot more at http://www.pattakon.com about the mechanical )and other more "flexible") throttle-less Variable Valve Actuation systems.

That is a very elegant design Manolis.....the reason I was asking was to investigate alternate means of controlling a secondary variable geometry port system powered by manifold pressure, not the overall control of engine air flow via a foot pedal........let's see, a variable geometry intake port combined with your variable throttle intake valve system.......a lot of stuff to think about here, thanks so much Manolis! 👍

That is a very elegant design Manolis.....the reason I was asking was to investigate alternate means of controlling a secondary variable geometry port system powered by manifold pressure, not the overall control of engine air flow via a foot pedal........let's see, a variable geometry intake port combined with your variable throttle intake valve system.......a lot of stuff to think about here, thanks so much Manolis! 👍

John

Using variable intake valve control is a very efficient means of throttling an Otto cycle engine. But it's still a form of throttle.

While it does not directly address the question in the OP, variable displacement would be even more efficient than a variable valve system. Of course, I'm sure manolis has a design for this approach also.

The intake valves of the PatAir control the load without throttling the Otto engine.

The throttle-less PatAir Otto engine operates either according the Fiat MultiAir modes, or according an “unlimited” Miller cycle wherein the lighter the load, the later the intake valves close after the BDC.

The following plot shows the cam-lift vs the crankshaft-angle of the 1st PatAir prototype (blue curve) and of the Original MultiAir engine:

The intake camlobe profiles of the Mito MultiAir and of the Mito PatAir are shown below.

The opening camlobe profile of the PatAir and of the MultiAir are identical; also the closing camlobe profiles are identical; but between the opening camlobe profile and the closing camlobe profile of the PatAir it has been added a constant-lift lobe which, in this case, is of 136 degrees.

This allows the air or mixture to enter the cylinder and return back to the intake manifold at minimum pumping loss (nothing to do with the light load pumping loss of the typical Otto).

For instance, at low-medium revs and with the intake valves wide open until 45 degrees before the Combustion Dead Centre (315 degrees in the cam-lift plot) the engine runs at light load actually rid of pumping loss.

The "Outgoing Air Control" cycle avoids not only the underpressure, under part load, into the intake manifold (as the throttle-less VVAs, like the Fiat MultiAir and the BMW valvetronic, do) but it also avoids the underpressure into the cylinder by avoiding the expansion of the charge before the compression.By minimizing the pumping-loss, by avoiding the consumption of mechanical-energy to just expand and warm the charge, by keeping alive the turbulence and swirl during combustion and by improving the mixture homogeny the "Outgoing Air Control" minimizes the mechanical-energy loss and optimizes the combustion.The PatAir is an evolution of the MultiAir because it can operate not only according the infinite available modes of Fiat MutliAir cycle, but also according the infinite modes of pattakon "Outgoing Air Control" cycle.. . .The extremely accurate, instant, flexible, cheap and easy electronic control is the key advantage of the MultiAir, as well as of the PatAir and of the PattAir.The VVA system is not based, any longer, on an extreme construction accuracy of the hardware.The ECU, based on the feedback, controls independently the operation of each cylinder by just aligning the opening and closing times of the solenoid valves.It is simple to modify and control complicate engines like the V-8 and the V-12.The side cam American V-8 engines can easily turn to efficient and clean engines.

The electronic control offers flexibility: for instance, a PatAir four inline engine is easy to operate with one cylinder deactivated, with another cylinder running at full load, with another cylinder running at medium load according the "Ingoing Air Control" cycle and with another cylinder running at medium load according the "Outgoing Air Control" cycle. It is also easy to swap, a few dozens of times per second, the above modes among the cylinders.

Combining the PattAir with one of pattakon VCRs, a Variable Capacity Engine (VCE) results that can operate at all revs-loads at optimum efficiency, leaving no room for the hybrids and limiting the use of the Diesel engines.

Is a PatAir engine with actual compression 3:1 (light load) and expansion ratio 10:1 a Variable Capacity Engine? I think it is.

If the brake thermal efficiency of the PatAir Otto at partial loads is similar to (or better than) the brake thermal efficiency of the Otto at heavy load, who needs the hybrids and the Diesels?

Imagine a Mazda SkyActive-G (compression ratio 14:1, limited Miller cycle) with the PattAir on its cylinder head, 18:1 compression ratio and with the PatHead VCR ( http://www.pattakon....pattakonVCR.htm ) to decrease the compression ratio at heavy load (for top power density).

In the EcoMotors’ variable-capacity-engine approach, the cylinders are deactivated two-by-two; this is because each basic module of the OPOC comprises two cylinders.Special clutches are used for the disengagement; and the power of the distant basic module passes to the load indirectly, through the crankshaft of the next to the load basic module.I.e. the OPOC basic module the nearest to the load, works overtime.In case of failure (reasonably, the overworking module will fail first) the complete system halts.

In the pattakon approach (Fig 21) the cylinders are deactivated one-by-one, enabling a closer to the optimum capacity.With a twin PatPOC at the one side of the primary shaft of the gearbox, and a single PatPOC at the other side, the set can run as either a single cylinder, or as a two cylinder or as a three cylinder engine.The power of each module arrives directly, and independently, to the load.In case the one engine fails, the other continues normally for “ever”, improving the reliability/safety of the system.And they are needed neither special clutches, nor high tech control systems (even a manual system works fine).

Hybrid killer tech?

Consider the case of a sport car having a powerful V-8 engine at the one side of the primary shaft of its gearbox (in the place of the 11, Fig 21), and a small green engine (like the single cylinder full balanced PatPOC or PatOP, or like the Fiat 500 TwinAir) at the other end of gearbox primary shaft (in the place of the 10, Fig 21).The car can go downtown (and anywhere else the driver likes to go economically and environmentally) using its small green engine.With the coolant from the small engine circulating into the big engine, to keep it warm, the V-8 is ready, any moment, to power the car (with or without the assistance of the green engine).The vehicle is way more reliable and cheap-to-run and cheap-to-maintain and green.The big engine design becomes more uncompromised.And because it doesn’t need to operate at conditions not matching its character, the big engine will last longer (it isn’t rare: an expensive sport car struggling to idle in the bottleneck, with the rest drivers shutting their car windows to keep the noise out).

Compare this solution to the new sport hybrid cars the sport-car makers launch, one by one, in their effort to comply with the present and future emission regulations.Judging from the 95 gr CO2 / Km, in the combined European cycle, of the 1030Kp heavy Fiat 500 TwinAir, the sport car, any sport car, can be – according the present regulations – as green and fuel efficient as the best hybrid cars, without batteries, without electromotors, without high tech control and without high cost.

Manolis
Why do you think Fiat decided on EIVC rather than LIVC? Could it be ejection of fuel/air into the intake manifold? Has this presented any problems (eg emissions) on your LIVC prototypes? Direct injection will eliminate fuel ejection but it is expensive and competes for space on the cylinder head with VVT/VVL mechanisms.

ManolisWhy do you think Fiat decided on EIVC rather than LIVC? Could it be ejection of fuel/air into the intake manifold? Has this presented any problems (eg emissions) on your LIVC prototypes? Direct injection will eliminate fuel ejection but it is expensive and competes for space on the cylinder head with VVT/VVL mechanisms.

Guntguru,

I guessFiat prefers the EIVC for their MultiAir because for the LIVC they have to pay royalties.

The PatAir can operate not only according the infinite available modes of the Fiat MutliAir cycle (Ingoing Air Control), but also according the infinite "Outgoing Air Control" modes of pattakon.Since neither the long duration intake camlobes of the PatAir adds any cost, at all, nor the ECU reprogramming adds any cost, at all, the PatAir is better than the MultiAir / TwinAir of Fiat from every point of view.

The prototype operates according the theory without problems.

The LIVC is based exactly on the ejection of fuel/air (ported injection) or of air (direct injection) into the intake manifold.

The reciprocation of the air/fuel (ported injection) between the cylinder and the intake manifold offers perfect mixing, especially at light load operation.

The Prius of Toyota operates on this principle (13:1 compression ratio / limited Miller cycle, i.e. over-expansion). Despite the fact that one-quarter (more or less) of the fuel/air that enters a cylinder of the Prius is ejected back to the intake manifold, the Prius engine is among the spark ignition engines with top brake thermal efficiency. On the other hand, from 1800cc the Prius engine makes only 98 bhp.

Ejecting back to the intake manifold the 1/4 of the mixture means that what you really have is only 1350cc of engine capacity (1800cc * 3 / 4 ); but after the combustion it follows a 33% over-expansion that, together with the minimization of the pumping loss, increases significantly the BTE.

The Direct injection is more expensive and needs more space.

Since the Hydro-Mechanical-Electric MultiAir has been proved – in practice – more than reliable, the removal of the restoring valve springs as in the HyDesmo ( http://www.pattakon....akonHyDesmo.htm )

not only provides plenty of additional space in the way shorter cylinder head (as compared to the conventional DOHC engines) but it also allows the ideal orientation of the valves (concentric valve axes, for instance) and of the ports, without complication or cost.

[quote name='Kelpiecross' date='Oct 13 2012, 12:03' post='5971565'
[quote name='manolis' date='Oct 13 2012, 05:33' post='5969975']
The Helical Camshaft is simpler, all mechanical and can perform all the "tricks" of the other types - and it is not rev-limited.
/quote]

Kelpiecross,

An "all mechanical VVA system" cannot perform all the "tricks" of a digital VVA system.

It is like comparing the old mechanical distributors (those with the centrifugal spark advance) with the present electronic ignition systems.

In order the valvetronic of BMW to keep balanced the cylinders (i.e. in order to keep equal quantity of mixture per cylinder) it needs extreme construction accuracy, special design of the cooling system etc. High cost, no flexibility.

The MultiAir is based on a normal construction accuracy combined with "digital" alignment from the ECU according the feedback.

The MultiAir is a mechanical-hydraulic system wherein a solenoid valve per cylinder receives electrical pulses from the ECU and controls accordingly an "oil push rod" per intake valve. At the beginning of the pulse the solenoid valve closes, the "oil pushrod" acts like a solid pushrod by means of which the camlobe actuates the valve to open (as in the conventional engines); at the end of the pulse the "oil push rod" collapses, the valve disengages from the camlobe and is restored under the action of the valve spring.
The ECU according the signals from the oxygen etc sensors around the engine aligns independently each cylinder, several times per second. What the ECU actually aligns is just the moment each solenoid valve is triggered to open and each solenoid valve is triggered to close, like a timer.
If the ECU senses that the third cylinder runs at heavier load than the others, it advances for a few millionths of a second the pulse to the solenoid valve at the thrid cylinder. Such things are impossible for the mechanical systems.

Without a throttle valve, the micro-alignment of different cylinders of a multicylinder Helical Camshaft engine is not at all easy.
To achieve a clean / smooth / stable and reliable idling is from difficult to impossible.
Read at http://www.pattakon....onIdleValve.htm about the pattakon idle valves.

Note that the UK-IPO (British patent office) does the “Search and Examination” and then “the Rejection of the Application” or “the Granting of a Patent” more quickly (earlier) than the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), than the Australian IPO etc.

I wrote in my previous reply that : "I guess Fiat prefers the EIVC for their MultiAir because for the LIVC they have to pay royalties."

However, worse than paying royalties is the "prestige issue” for a company like FIAT.It is not easy for their R&D heads to admit that despite FIAT invented and has in production the MulltiAir technology, FIAT uses this technology the wrong way.

The main difference between the "Ingoing Air Control" (EIVC) and the "Outgoing Air Control" (LIVC) is not in the pumping loss.The big difference has to do with the combustion.

At partial load operation / low-medium revs (wherein the typical engine spends most of its life) the EIVC (early intake valve closing or "Ingoing Air Control") causes the temperature and the pressure of the cycle to significantly increase as compared to those in the LIVC (late intake valve closing or "Outgoing Air Control" or Miller cycle). This, in turn, causes additional thermal loss (and additional mechanical friction loss). The lighter the load, the bigger the difference between EIVC and LIVC.

I was hoping you would have a simple answer to my question.It seems ludicrous that merely changing the valve timing of their existing system would render Fiat liable to pay royalties.

Gruntguru,

There are no simple answers.

For each patent application a specialized in the subject Examiner searches the Prior Art and examines what the applicant claims according the rules and the laws of the Patent Office.

The Examiner has to justify in details his decision either to reject an application or to grant a patent.

Then there is a period wherein any third party can file an opposition.

Then the patent is in force for twenty years.

Ludicrous or not, according the law FIAT cannot make, use or sell the PatAir as long as the patent is in force.

Recently Samsung was forced by a USA court to pay to Apple nearly a billion dollars because the first, without a licence from the second (i.e. without paying royalties to Apple) uses in the Samsung Galaxy technology protected with patents granted to Apple by the USPTO.

I think the simple answer is that there is no patent on LIVC - and that LIVC is essentially unpatentable.

Kelpiecross,

here is the first page of the first (?) patent for an LIVC system (inventor: Ralf Miller, filed 1952).

So you are saying that if Fiat changed the valve timing on its sytem to a LIVC strategy, they would be infringing the Patair patent?

Gruntguru, I am not saying this. It depends on the way of the realization of the Miller cycle:

1. If they (Fiat) use the conventional way (a VVT / phaser to advance / retard, as necessary, the camshaft relative to the crankshaft), no they are not infringing the PatAir patent.

However this solution is not applicable in single camshaft engines (as all the present MultiAir engines in production).Fiat, reasonably, could move to DOHC MultiAir cylinder heads; this solution works, but with all the problems / limitations met in the conventional Miller cycle engines.For instance, take the original camshaft of the Alfa Romeo Mito

wherein the camlift is above 0.5mm from 0 to 225 crankshaft degrees, and suppose the intake camlobes are secured on their own intake camshaft (DOHC MultiAir).Start phasing the intake camshaft to cause a significant LIVC. What you add in duration after the BDC is subtracted from the duration “before” the “overlap” TDC. If you want, for instance, to “close” the intake valves at 45 degrees before the Combustion Dead Center ( CDC, i.e. the TDC wherein combustion happens) in order to operate the engine at light load, the intake valves have to start opening at 90 crank degrees after the “overlap” TDC, i.e. well after the middle stroke. Think of the problems caused (it is supposed that the Miller cycle increases the Brake Thermal Efficiency). For operation at even lighter load, the problem worsens.

2. The other way is Fiat to “substantially” extend, after the BDC, the intake camlobe duration and to operate - when necessary - their engines according the “Outgoing Air Control” cycle (Miller / PatAir). At that point the infringement “starts”. The more they extend the intake cam lobe duration and the more air/mixture exits from the cylinder back to the intake manifold (both are measurable quantities), the more the infringement.At the claims of the patent is where the “limits” of the protection are s[ecifically defined.

Besides, it is the cost issue: "a second camshaft with its phaser vs the royalties".

I take that as a "yes". My question was intended to mean "If Fiat changed the valve timing of their system by means of a modified cam profile and ECU calibration". I had a look at Fiat's patent and find did astonishing they did not cover the use of their system to produce LIVC. Well done Manolis.

Without a throttle valve, the micro-alignment of different cylinders of a multicylinder Helical Camshaft engine is not at all easy. To achieve a clean / smooth / stable and reliable idling is from difficult to impossible.Read at http://www.pattakon....onIdleValve.htm about the pattakon idle valves.

A nice solution but expensive in retrofit situations and does not allow for idle speed/load control.

A simpler solution would be to use LIVC to control load from 100% down to say 5% then restrict airflow with a throttle valve for the range from say 10% to idle. Idle pumping losses would be similar to your idle control valve system (which is controlling ingoing air) although slightly higher than a full solenoid controlled idle air valve system as described on your website which could be used to control outgoing air.

Fiat together with Schaeffler INA (INA is the German company that manufactures and assembles the MultiAir set, then Fiat installs it in the Alfa Romeo, Fiat, Lancia and Chrysler MultiAir engines) were the first to be informed about the PatAir, well before its publication in the web.

After the publication of the PatAir, the (many) efforts to reach the R&D heads of Fiat MultiAir / INA are still unanswered. It seems their policy is “do not reply / do not respond”. Why?

The "funny thing": One of the PatAir inventors was classmate (at the Technical University) with a "head" of Fiat MultiAir project.

Fiat has everything necessary (infrastructure, experience etc) to modify one of their MultiAir engines in order to make their own qualification secretly. It takes less than a week, for them. Did they realized such modification / qualification?

Note that this poppet idle-valve (2) is: much lighter than a normal valve (1), it operates only at low revs, it performs a much shorter stroke.That is, it fits, better than anything, to electromagnetic control.

Controlling the duration each idle-valve is kept open (a control similar to that used for the fuel injection), not only the idling but also the light load operation (say at down-town traffic) could be fully and accurately (based on the feed back) controlled.

A nice solution but expensive in retrofit situations and does not allow for idle speed/load control.

A simpler solution would be to use LIVC to control load from 100% down to say 5% then restrict airflow with a throttle valve for the range from say 10% to idle. Idle pumping losses would be similar to your idle control valve system (which is controlling ingoing air) although slightly higher than a full solenoid controlled idle air valve system as described on your website which could be used to control outgoing air.

This is pretty much exactly what they discovered at Helical Cams. The idle was controlled mainly by LIVC (whether it was 5% or !0% of full manifold pressure is unknown - but it was something of that order). The final idle speed "trimming" was by throttle plate. The idle quality was as good as and probably better than standard. The HC crew never managed to achieve idle solely by LIVC. I have since read and (and been told personally by researchers in the field) that it is considered to be unlikely that LIVC-only idle control can be done. I don't know if this is strictly correct but I don't think it matters too much. Certainly HC thought that there was little disadvantage in having the final idle control by throttle plate. It is also notable that the GSX250 test engine was totally standard as regards induction layout etc. The inlet camshaft was the only modification in that it was of the helical pattern. Just to remind those who don't know - the HC/throttle controlled idle fuel usage was around 35% to 40% less than a standard GSX250. This was a big surprise to the designers and builders of the cam who were expecting maybe 5% to 10% improvement at best or possibly that the inlet backflows (due to the LIVC) would upset the engine's induction system to the point where it may not run at all.

What does it need to get a patent through? I have my own constantly variable individual valve control, reactive rebound damping that has excellent axle traction control between two tyre load, post bump(or load loss) a possible variable camber Independent Suspension that has zero mechanical effect or zero forced change on behavior on side loads. On longitudinal load, tyre axle load, simultaneous wheel load would have no effect on camber. When suspension is loaded individually it would activate camber changes per wheel oncorners or bumps. When both wheel are moving at the same direction at the same speed at different levels or spring load, the existing camber is maintained. Certainly sounds like BS doesn't it. Whether it will work I'm not too sure.

When I was young I designed a variable cam control via planetary gears but found out(Performance Bikes magazine), obviously, that it had been designed long ago. I drew a race engine with injectors external to the trumpets running on super high pressure when Formula 1 went fully naturally aspirated and still had port injection(89'?).

At this very moment (got the idea early this year)I've drawn up a racing gearbox single clutch arrangement (usual clutch, nothing fancy) that will transfer torque nearly as linear as a double clutch system to qualify double clutch technology into racing to get better lap times. It has some similarities to zero shift but is clutch dependent and it still controls load smoothness. Certainly sounds like BS I know.

What does it need to get a patent through? I have my own constantly variable individual valve control, reactive rebound damping that has excellent axle traction control between two tyre load, post bump(or load loss) a possible variable camber Independent Suspension that has zero mechanical effect or zero forced change on behavior on side loads. On longitudinal load, tyre axle load, simultaneous wheel load would have no effect on camber. When suspension is loaded individually it would activate camber changes per wheel oncorners or bumps. When both wheel are moving at the same direction at the same speed at different levels or spring load, the existing camber is maintained. Certainly sounds like BS doesn't it. Whether it will work I'm not too sure.

When I was young I designed a variable cam control via planetary gears but found out(Performance Bikes magazine), obviously, that it had been designed long ago. I drew a race engine with injectors external to the trumpets running on super high pressure when Formula 1 went fully naturally aspirated and still had port injection(89'?).

At this very moment (got the idea early this year)I've drawn up a racing gearbox single clutch arrangement (usual clutch, nothing fancy) that will transfer torque nearly as linear as a double clutch system to qualify double clutch technology into racing to get better lap times. It has some similarities to zero shift but is clutch dependent and it still controls load smoothness. Certainly sounds like BS I know.

PS - I don't know just literally what you mean by "What does it need etc." I don't know what country you live in but in Oz it is not difficult to file your own provisional patent application for $100 or so. Despite what patent attorneys may tell you these self-prepared applications carry a lot of legal weight - especially if the idea is truly novel and not just some slight variation on an existing idea. If I was you I would file a provisional application (even an Oz one - they can be done over the internet). This would give you worldwide protection for at least a year.

I would then describe your idea on this forum. As you know there are plenty of active car company engineers that read this forum and plenty more people who have contacts with car companies. You can be assured that if your idea is as good as you say it is the car companies will get to hear about it.

But no company will come after you waving fistfulls of money to find out what your idea is unless you reveal at least the basic details of it.

PS - I don't know just literally what you mean by "What does it need etc." I don't know what country you live in but in Oz it is not difficult to file your own provisional patent application for $100 or so. Despite what patent attorneys may tell you these self-prepared applications carry a lot of legal weight - especially if the idea is truly novel and not just some slight variation on an existing idea. If I was you I would file a provisional application (even an Oz one - they can be done over the internet). This would give you worldwide protection for at least a year.

I would then describe your idea on this forum. As you know there are plenty of active car company engineers that read this forum and plenty more people who have contacts with car companies. You can be assured that if your idea is as good as you say it is the car companies will get to hear about it.

But no company will come after you waving fistfulls of money to find out what your idea is unless you reveal at least the basic details of it.

Agree. My experience with patent agents is that they do a fairly good job of a fairly easy task, about the level of a postie. Unless /you/ spend a fortune searching prior art then they rely on the classification system to tell them where to search for prior patents, I found about 4 times as many as a patent agent. I found writing the patent fairly easy but we'll never kbow how effective it was as we never filed the full patent.

Went to their website which is not too bad. Unfortunately their link to an animation isn't working and I cant be bothered trying to decipher the mechanics of the beast.

Thermodynamically it is a high compression, ultra-high expansion Diesel engine with constant volume (Otto) combustion. If it works, the cycle is undoubtedly capable of very high efficiency. My initial concern with the cycle is heat loss to the combustion chamber during the lengthy dwell at TDC. Similarly, the peak cycle pressure will be very high.

This is the “diary” (the step-by-step process followed, the letters sent and received, the money spent, the time required) of the patenting in the patent offices of USA and UK of an invention regarding the Variable Compression Ratio Engine presented at http://www.pattakon....pattakonVCR.htm

Initial filing in the USA

On March 16, 2009 it was filed on-line a patent application in the U.S. Patent Office (US-PTO, http://www.uspto.gov ).

The applicant / inventor provides the data requested like: name of the first inventor, contact address, telephone, e-mail etc, title of the invention, type of the patent to be granted (the specific one is a utility patent; there are other types like: provisional, international etc). These steps are like “registering in a forum”.

Then the applicant uploads the three basic PDF files he has prepared for his patent:A PDF file with the title, the description, the claims and the abstract of the invention.A PDF file with the drawings of the invention.A PDF file with details about the inventors / applicants (Oath or Declaration).For each PDF file the applicant has to select its category/class from a list.

Just after the successful uploading and the automatic-check of the PDF files from the US-PTO (it takes a couple of minutes), it comes the on-line payment, by credit-card of $ 462. The $ 462 is the filing, search and the examination fees for "small entities" in case of electronic filing (in case of non «small entity" the cost doubles).Immediately after the payment, the patent office sends an “Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt” with:· The number US12/404, 355 given to the application,· The title of the invention (VARIABLE COMPRESSION RATIO ENGINE),· The first named inventor / applicant,· The contact address,· The date and time of the filing (east-coast time)· The amount paid,· The size and the name of each of the files received.

Details on the initial cost in the US-PTO:

The cost depends on the number and type of the claims, and on the total number of pages of the application. The $ 462 is the minimum cost (today it is $530) and covers up to three independent claims, up to twenty dependent claims and up to 100 pages of description and drawings.There is an extra charge for additional claims, if any.The multiple dependent claims are expensive.

Two weeks later (March 31, 2009) the US-PTO mails the "filing receipt".The application goes to the "queue", waiting to be examined by a specialist in this subject Examiner of the US-PTO.No other communication for a long time.

At http://www.pattakon..../US12404355.pdf they are all these files (specification, drawings, declaration) filed by the inventor / applicant, and all subsequent communication between the applicant and the US-PTO until the final approval – granting of the patent.

Filing in other countries

A year (minus a day) later (15 March 2010) the same patent application was filed on-line in the English Office ( http://www.ipo.gov.uk ) and elsewhere.This could not be done after March 16, 2010: the time limit (for filing for the same invention in other countries) expiries twelve months after the filing of the patent application in one country. Nobody, not even the inventor, is allowed to apply for the same invention in other countries after the 12 months period, with one exception:By filing an international application in the World Intellectual Property Office (PCT) the 12 months time limit extends to 30 months (counted from the 1st priority date); the bad news? the cost of a PCT application is nearly US3,500$.

The application number GB1004212.5 was given to the application by the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO).The electronic receipt is at http://www.pattakon....VCR_Receipt.pdf

Priority

A significant difference in the English application is that it “claims” the “priority” of the initial application filed in the USA (the original application filed on March 16 2009 to the US-PTO does not claim "priority" because it is the first application of the inventor for a patent for the same invention, i.e. there is no "priority" to claim).The priority protects the inventor in case someone, anywhere in the world, files an application in the meantime (i.e. before March 15, 2010): the one having the priority wins.

Process / paperwork for the priority documents

The English office needs an official copy of the original application filed in the USPTO.On June 15, 2010 it was requested by fax (shown in the communication with US-PTO) the US patent office to “open” the US12/440, 355 patent application to other patent offices. The process is completed on-line via the WIPO-PDAS service (a recent service of the World Intellectual Property Organization) and access of the UK-IPO to the US12/440, 355 was allowed.

Search and Examination Report from the UK Office

On 14 June 2010 the English patent office (UK-IPO) sends a letter with the Search and Examination Report, wherein the Examiner decides / believes that all claims are rejected, and his decision is based on three documents:

Six pages of technical text and two pages with drawings explain in details - with purely technical arguments - the mistakes of the “Search and Examination Report”, analyzes the serious technical problems of the three “cited by the Examiner” patents, and shows the comparative advantages of the patent application under examination. Based on these the applicant asks for a new "correct" Report.

With his letter of 31 August 2010 the Examiner accepts the arguments of the applicant / inventor (letter of July 4, 2010), he thanks for the technical analysis that helped him better understand the invention, and proposes some formal modifications (no substantive) in order the application to match the English standards (for example, they are not allowed more than one independent claims, otherwise the patent "breaks" in two or more patents).

If the English Examiner insisted on his original 'Search and Examination report”, "the inventor has the right to ask Examiner’s Supervisor to investigate the case as “referee”. If the disagreement continuous, the English patent office can call the inventor for an interview in a last attempt for agreement.

Application publication

In September 2010 the US-PTO by a letter informs the applicant that the application is to be published on September 16, 2010 (it is when they are completed 18 months from the filing). After the 16 of September 2010 the patent application is open and accessible by everyone, at the “Patent Search” of the US-PTO.

With a similar letter the UK-IPO informs for the publication of the application in http://www.ipo.gov.uk .

Filing of amendments in the UK-IPO and patent granting

On September 14, 2010 the applicant filed on-line (electronically) in the UK-IPO the list with the modified (according the instructions of the Examiner) claims.

The claims are accepted and on January 4, 2011 a patent is granted by the UK-IPO.

and the American US6880499 (IAV), which is the third document cited in the English “Search and Examination Report” above.

The Examiner asks the applicant to add "marker numbers" in some of the drawings of the application and to arrange the description into sections according to the U.S. standards.

On February 22, 2012 they are filed, by fax, the modified (according the instructions of the Examiner) drawings and the modified description.

Final approval and grant of a patent in the USA

On March 15, 2012 the US-PTO sends the final approval (Notice of Allowance), and the notice for payment of 1170 $ fees (issue fee and publication fee).In the same letter, the USPTO calculates (determination of patent term adjustment) at 642 days the added to twenty years time of protection, due to delays caused by the US-PTO.

On March 21, 2012 the necessary information for the payment of the $ 1170 are faxed to USPTO.

Total cost in the USA

The total cost of this patent in the United States is: US$ 462 + $ 1,170 = US $ 1,632.

In 2015 the applicant has to pay “maintenance fees” of $ 550 to keep the patent in force during the years 2015-2018.

In 2018 the applicant has to pay “maintenance fees” for the next three years, and so on (the “maintenance” cost increases substantially with the “age” of the patent).

On April 11, 2012 with an “Issue Notification” letter informs the applicant for the number of patent ( US8,166,929 ), for the date of the granting of the patent (May 1, 2012) and for the final “determination of patent term adjustment” (688 days are added to the 20 years of protection).

Comments

The http://www.pattakon..../US12404355.pdffile was created by the US-PTO with the filing of the patent application. Initially it includes the original application (specification, drawings, declaration), the electronic receipt.

After the publication of the patent application, the file became accessible to the public via the USPTO - PAIR (Patent Application Information Retrieval). Each time a letter or fax from the applicant / inventor was received by the USPTO, it was added, in electronic form (PDF format), to the above file. Before sending any letter from the USPTO to the inventor / applicant, the letter was added to the above file. This way a “diary” for the specific patent was created by the US-PTO. This file shows how the American patent system works.

This case of “patenting” completed “smoothly”, without problems, so it was suitable as a reference point in this article.

The applicant / inventor could become "registered user" of the USPTO - PAIR to be able to communicate electronically with the American office, but the process is unacceptably bureaucratic. That's why you see the communication of the applicant with the US-PTO done by fax.

In comparison, the English Patent Office (UK-IPO) uses the on-line communication without preconditions: the response of the applicant is filed (as a PDF file) on-line on the server of UK-IPO.

I hope the above answer reasonable questions of a potential inventor / applicant.

This is probably not the place to post it, but I wasn't sure if I should start a new thread.

It is always interesting to see these new gadgets - but as ever I doubt if it would really be practical.

It is not especially difficult to build a diesel Atkinson Cycle engine which has a compression ratio of 20:1(or therabouts) and an expansion ratio of 40:1. With an engine like this the exhaust would be just sort of warmish and not far off atmospheric pressure. You could even have an expansion ratio of 100:1 if you wanted (maybe it would produce cold exhaust). But ideas like this are not practical as the engine would would produce little power for its size and weight. (This new engine would surely have the same problem?) The point I am trying to make is that you don't need to go for weird engine architecture to produce these over-expansion effects. Like GG I have no idea about how they solve their sealing and valve problems but almost certainly they would have trouble doing this. I really don't think anyone will ever come up with a better sealing system than the conventional circular piston and rings etc. Even if you wanted to have the constant volume effect until combustion is complete this could be done with some form of cam-type arrangement replacing the crankshaft (and a conventional piston arrangement) - but as GG says this just gives more time for heat losses.